PDF

The Nature and Extent of Idolatry in Eighth-Seventh Century Judah
Author(s): Jacob Milgrom

Source: Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. 69 (1998), pp. 1-13
Published by: Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508852
Accessed: 03-05-2017 17:42 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508852?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Hebrew Union College Annual
This content downloaded from 189.82.93.34 on Wed, 03 May 2017 17:42:10 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Nature and Extent of Idolatry in
Eighth-Seventh Century Judah
Jacob Milgrom
University of California at Berkeley
Datable biblical texts of the eighth century accuse Israel of idolatry 15 times in
contrast to 166 accusations in the seventh century. This lopsided imbalance is ex
plicable by assuming thatjehu in Northern Israel andjehoiada in Judah wiped out
the Baal cult from the establishment sanctuaries during the ninth century (2 Kings
10:1-2;11:7-18). Archaeological evidence for the distribution of cultic figurines dur
ing this period also confirms their virtual absence from these sanctuaries. However,
figurines are found in profusion in thejudahite countryside, and especially in the
city of David in the shadow of the Temple over the eighth to sixth centuries.
Thus, the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah were effective only with establishment
sanctuaries but were failures regarding the private, popular cult. Also the prophets
of the eighth century did not view private idolatry as a threat to the official worship
of of YHWH; hence the paucity of accusations. However the prophets of the seventh
century, under the influence of Deuteronomy, demanded eradication of idolatry in
all its forms, private as well as public but to no avail.
The Biblical Text
This study is grounded in these statistics: The datable b

the eighth century accuses Israel of idolatry 15 times;1 tha
seventh century 166 times. These totals break down as f
26:1),26:1), Am0s(5:26),H0sea(5:3b-4;6:10),Isaiah(2:8,18
30:22; 31:7),Micah(1:7; 5:12-133).In the seventh century
too many to itemize; here are the totals for each book:
Jeremiah (46 ), Ezekiel ( 82 ), Zephaniah (1), Habakuk (1).
At once I must enter two qualifications. First, these st
mate. Admittedly, I have not distinguished between the ips
prophets and those of tradents ( to cite one obvious examp
tions of Jeremiah). However, even if we could identify the
(1) For this paper I define idolatry broadly: the worship of all images,
but also of YHWH. My definition, therefore, covers the first and se
the Decalogue (Exod 20:3-6; Deut 5:7-10, following Philo, Decal. 52
91-92; Sifre Num. 112; b.Sanh. 99a; b.cOr. 8b; see the Addendum, belo
2 JACOB MILCROM [2]
them from our count, the tota

century statements in the book
initial preexilic redaction: Inde
monly accepted by scholars!' th
Northern Israel prophetic docu
sus on the extent of this redactio
consideration.
The second qualification concerns the book of Hosea. I accept the theo
proposed by Kaufmann6and amplified by Ginsberg7 that Hosea 1-3 (hen
forth, Hos 1) constituted the work of a ninth century northern prophe
Among the compelling reasons for this distinction, one is especially r
vant for this study. Hos I is replete with accusations of Baal worship, but th
are absent from Hos II(chapters 4-14). Hos II either refers to idolatry of
past, the sin of Baal-peor (9:10; 13:1) or "idolatry"of the present, namel
the worship of the golden calves (8:4-6; 13:2) which, as recognized, sym
bolize the presence of YHWH, not the Baal. Lastly, the country altar is t
scene ofzent, not idolatry, but literally'fornication,'enhanced by drunk
ness (4:10-18; 7:3-7; 9:1-2; cf. 5:1-4; 6:8-10).8 It is significant that Amo
the only other eighth century writing prophet of Northern Israel, nev
mentions the Baal.9
( 2 ) Tentatively cf. the summary in S. L. McKenzie,"Deuteronomistic History,''ABD 2( 199

160-68; F. M.Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Pre
1973) 1973) 278-85; R.D.Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield; T
University of Sheffield, 1981) 119-28; R.E.Friedman,"From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2,"
B.Halpern and J. Levenson, eds., Traditions in Transformation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbraun
1981)167-92.
(3) See most recently B.Halpern and D.Vanerhooft,"The Editions of Kings in the 7th t
6th centuries bce,''HUCA 62(1991)179-244; G.N.Knoppers, Two Nations Under God (2 vols
Atlanta,Atlanta,GA: Scholars Press, 1995)1:17-56.
(4) Recently B.Halpern,"Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicale Thematic Structure,"
R.E.R.E. Friedman, ed.,The Creation of Sacred Literature( Berkley: University of California Press, 1
35-54, esp. 48-53; W. B. Barrick,"On the Meaning of bt habbmt and btt-habbmt and t
Composition of the Kings History,'"JBL 115(1996)621-42,esp. 636-40.
(5) P. K. McCarter, / Samuel(AB 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980) 18-23; A. Campbell,
Prophets Prophets and Kings: A Ninth Century Document (1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10)( C BQ Monograph Series
Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986)139-202.
(6) Y.Kaufmann, The History ofIsraelite Religion (4vols. ;Tel Aviv : Dvir, 1948)3:93-107 (He
cf. idem, The Religion of Israel, M.Greenberg, trans, and abridged (Chicago: University of Chic
Press, i960) 368-72.
(7) H.L.Ginsberg,"Hosea,"78(1971)1010-24,esp. 1011-17; cf.NJPSon Hos 1:4.
(8) Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion (4 vols.; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1945) 2:130-34 (Heb
idem idem, The Religion of Israel, 374-75.
(g) Kaufmann, The History ofIsraelite Religion, 2:83.
[3] IDOLATRY IN JUDAH 3
What could have caused the disapp

from Amos and Hosea 11 ? The answer
literally :Jehu wiped out the official, r
( 2 Kgs to : 1-2 8 ). Of course, private
fetishistic asabbm ( Hos 4:17 ;l0 Mic 1:
(Hos ellm (Isa 2:8, 18, 20; 3:7, b
(Isa 2:8; 31:7; 37:1g; Hos 14:4; Mic 5
was not state sponsored it was not a
Amos Amos 5:16 mentions the Mesopota
may have penetrated into northern Is
it is the only reference to these gods
sence from Hosea and from the list
the land after the exile of its inha
that their cult was neither widespread
Samaria) nor long lasting.
In In Judah, the major writing proph
one of the seven references to idola
time ( 2:8 ). It is part of Isaiah's larger
of magic, chariots, fortified walls, to
high places in nature : cedars, oaks,
tribute to human pride. It is man's hu
"makes" his own gods!5 This notion
Johanan said in the name of R.Simeon
haughtiness of spirit (gasstrah) is as
Psychological insight is provided by
his artistic capacities, on building a
which is nothing but the result of his
flowed into a'thing,'. . . (is experien
over and against him, which he worsh
Isaiah does not call for an immediate
(10) But cf. H.L.Ginsberg,"Lexicographica

(11) But cf. Kaufmann, The History of Israelite
( 12 ) Possibly, the Hebrew transliteration of
tesnamen Sukkut und Kajjamnu in Amos 5
meneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 19
eds., et al., Dictionary of Deities and Demons i
ficationwithSukkoth-Banoth(2 Kgs 17:30)is
DDL), 1553-56).
(13) Akkadian kajamnu, cf. Loretz, ibid.
(14) See Paul, ibid., 194-96, esp. n. 87.
(15) Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religio
(16) E.Fromm, The Sane Society (New York: R
4 JACOB MILGROM [4]
people that their paganism wil

the abolition of idolatry, so gr
ried out in the unpredictable f
to idols say the same (17:8; 27
counterparts, does not see pagan
same as that of the North: Sta
described in the book of Kings
Baal temple as a consequence o
the king (2 Kgs 11:17-18).
Micah's prophecy on Judean a
contemporary, Isaiah. In an esch
diets the destruction of idols tog
pillars and cities(5:12-13).Micah
the imminent destruction of N
North : Its doom is sealed. But, a
god.The idolatry of the masses
poles poles asrm) and incense s
altars (Isa 17:8) or in homes.
Finally, Leviticus 17-27 ( H ),wh
contains three references to id
two commandments of the Decal
sixth century Babylonian exile,1
threatened destruction.
In H, the tell-tale word tm' is used to indicate the contaminating effects

MolekMolek worship(20:3, on which see below) and necromancy (19:31 ).Taw'i
not used with idolatry. This indicates that idolatry does not render either t
sanctuary, the land,or its practitioners impure. Neither do the eighth centu
prophets characterize their references to idolatry as tm'. It is not that th
are unfamiliar with this term; they use it in connection with foreign la
(Amos 7:17; Hos 9:3-4),drunkenness (Hos 5:3; 6:10),harlotry (Hos 4
77:4 ; 9:1 ), social injustice ( Mic 2:10 )19 and general immorality ( Isa 6:5 ),but
with idolatry. To be sure, H does stigmatize Molek worship as tm' it pollu
the sanctuary and desecrates YHWH's name (Lev 20:3 ; cf. 18:21,24). But
people-at-large felt no inconsistency in worshipping both Molek and YH
in tandem. The importance of this verse (Lev 20:3) should, however, not
overlooked. It is the first time, in my opinion, that any non-YH WHistic w
(17) Tentatively, seeJ.Milgrom,Lmhn/-/6(AB 3; New York, 1991)28-29, and I.Knohl, T

Sanctuary Sanctuary of Silence{ Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995) 200-20.
(18) As will be argued in Milgrom,/,m'ii'rus 17-27 (AB 3a; forthcoming).
(1g) Cf. LXX, A.B.Ehrlich(Rnndglossen zur hebrischen Bibel(7 vols. ; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich
1908-14] )vv. 1-9.
ship is condemned using either the ver

suggest that it constitutes a preced
prophets to extend H's limited use of t
in all its forms and effects,and idolatr
termining Israel's destiny. Elsewhere I
belief in Judah that the worship of M
YHWH hence H twice calls it a de
Supportive textual evidence comes from
claimer three times "which I did not
mind" (7:31; 19:5; 32:35). Moreover,
belief that the worship of Molek was l
namely, that YHWH and Molek could
on on the same day. Extrabiblical eviden
was an infernal god,21 identified by its
than on a hill ), and by its juxtaposition
dicating that it was a form of necrom
Turning to the seventh century, the
try pollutes ( metamm ' ) its adherent
7:30; 19:13; 32:34; Ezek 20:7,18, 26,31; 22:3-4; 23:7. 17- 3: 25:29,
33; 37:23).The quantitative difference in the number of statements on idol
atry between the eighth and seventh centuries (15 versus 166 ) is accentuated
by the difference in the effects of idolatry, as illustrated by the distribution of
the term tm': zero times in the eighth century versus 17 in the seventh.
How can we account for this stupendous change? First, as mentioned
above, we must take the book of Kings at its word: Jehu in North Israel and
Jehoiada in Judah wiped out the Baal cult during the second half of the ninth
century(2 Kgs 10:1-2; 11:17-18).In effect state-sponsored paganism ceased.
It is absent throughout the eighth century. To be sure, there was private fe
tishism (see below), but the eighth century prophets were virtually uncon
cerned: It was no threat to the worship of YHWH in His sanctuaries or to
Israel's existence on its land. To be sure, Molek worship and necromancy are
indeed indicated by H (19:31; 20:1-6), but the general populace did not
view these acts as incompatible with their allegiance to YHWH, a miscon
ception that the priestly tradents of H and the prophets tried to correct?
(( 20) Milgrom, I^euiticus 1y-2y (AB 3a; New York: Doubleday, forthcoming).
(21) For the best demonstration, cf. J. Day, Molech, A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); cf. H.P.Muller, ODD, 1005-12. The thusfar un
published eighth century, Incirli(EasternTurkey) stele mentions mlk with the meaning"sacri
fice"(according to a communication from S. Kaufman, in February 1997). But the language is
Phoenician and has no bearing on biblical Hebr ew.
(22) As will be argued in Milgrom, Leviticus iy-27 (AB 3a; forthcoming).
6 JACOB MILGROM [6]
They may have been aided inde

brought with them the deutero
the ancestor cult, as can be seen
to the dead (Deut 26:14) or par
(Deut 14:1; 26:14), and by its ou
necromancy and Molek worship
The dominant prophets of th
were influenced by the thought,
book of Jeremiah, however, the
sages are attributed to deuteron
cerning their extent and date.
language in Ezekiel (confirmed by
feld's exhaustive list of deuteron
for deuteronomic thought:6 Up
tralizationtralization (e.g., 20:40),an
riates his people for their wors
and he repeatedly condemns th
13:20, 2 8 ; 34:6 ), figurative langu
bmt.bmt. True, Deuteronomy'
understandably so. Ezekiel is a
ideasin a priestly language. Ne
teachings. In sum, Jeremiah, pro
meated by D's language, and Eze
meated by D's thought. It there
idolatry, private as well as public
ments against idolatry in the sev
But to trace the prophetic den
question. What accounts for D's o
of all, it is a reflex of Manasseh's
injudah andjerusalem butin the
however, also alludes to private, s
thus anticipates (or reflects) a sit
state-sponsored cults, private one
worship of the queen of heaven
(23) Cf. K.van der Toorn, Family Relig

357-58
(24) Cf. Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion, 2:613-25 ; idem, The Religion ofIsrael, 415-17.
(25) M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and theDeuteronomicSchool (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972)
320-61.
(26) ContraW.Zimmerli,zefa>/(vol.1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979; trans. R.Clements,
from Ezekiel[2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn]) 1:46.
(27) Cf. W.McKane, Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986)1:235-46.
notwithstanding)28notwithstanding)28 the ast

rooms' rooms' (Ezek 8:12 ), and child sacri
20:31).That these cults were private
absence of a clergy, the quintessenti
cult;29contrast the royally establishe
23:4-7,1119 < 15?) Thus, alongside of
sprouted a widespread, individual o
uninterruptedly after the destruction
and and Judah and even after the Josian
royally sponsored cult places in Judah
The biblical evidence of idolatry has y
The difference in the state-endorsed
and the seventh century is largely sum
single person, Manasseh. By force m
idolatry into Jerusalem and Judah, co
reform reform ( ibid., v. 3 ),and even suc
idols in the Temple courtyards and i
4-7). Also, alongside the official cult
cult that continued unabated throug
untiljudah's destruction.
The Archaeology
These deductive conclusions must receive substantive supp

ciliary discipline of archaeology. First, however, I must credit
mann for possibly being the first to draw a sharp distinct
official and the popular cult.31 The problem is that he did not
biblical references and allusions sufficiently in order to ferre
ficial religion of the masses. Had he done so, he would no
monotheism to them. For this failing, however, he should not
ply because in his day (the thirties and forties) he did not
sive archaeological data now available to us.
Archaeological evidence for the popular cult exists, and
Among the artifacts, the most likely candidate is the figurine
distribution in time ( throughout Iron Age 11 ) and space (in s
Judah ) warrants certain conclusions concerning the exten
(28) M. Smith,"A Note on Burning Babies "]AOS 95(1975)477-79

(2g) Cf. Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion, 3:27 4-7 5; M.Greenb
22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) xxiii, n.47.
(30) Kaufmann,77je History of Israelite Religion, 3:452.
(31) Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion (4 vols.; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1
idem, The Religion of Israel, 142-47.
8 JACOB MILGROM [8]
idolatry in eighth to seventh ce

reveals a consistent pattern: the
worship"(worship"( Holladay's termi
ment sanctuaries," whereas a to
the countryside of Judah?3 Thes
jects representing the goddess As
ordinary people."34 The Ashera
of the biblical Asherah, which"
materials, situated in a public t
of all the population!'33
Parade examples of the former
The cave was excavated by Kenyo
Holland, who claims that 597 figu
Shilo's excavations at the City
ditional ceramic figurines; they
Again, the locus of these figurin
contrasts withjudahite"establish
VV ) and Arad ( strata V111-X1 ), w
To be sure, as shown by Metti
tire ancient Near East from ear
owitzowitz, it is a far cry from pa
opposition (Israel's state religion)?
(32) J.S.HolIaday,"Religion in Israel an

ological Approach," in Ancient Israelite
269-75.
(33) R.Kletter, TheJudean Pillar Figurines and the Archaeology ofAsherah (Oxford : BARInter
national Series,Tempus Reparatum, 1995)384-85, fig 3
(34) Ibid.,81.
(35) Ibid.; contra C.Meyers, Discovering Eve ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) 162.
(36) K.Kenyon ,Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History (London: Thames and Hudson,
1967); idem, Digging Up Jerusalem (New York: Praeger, 1974).
(37) T.A.Holland,"A Study of Palestinian Iron Age Baked Figurines with Special Reference
to Jerusalem ','Levant g ( 1977 ) 121-55.
(38) D.Gilbert-Peretz,"Ceramic Figures," in D.T. Ariel andA.de Groot.eds., Excavations at the
City City of David; Qedem35(1996)29-41.
(39) Figurines, also standing idols, were found in strata V and VI (ninth to sixth century) of
'En Hatzevah in the southern Negev, but these most likely belong to an Edomite shrine (R.Cohen
and Y. Israel, "Smashing the Idols. Piecing Together an Edomite Shrine in Judah," BAR 22/4
[1996(40-51,65; cf. I.Beit-Arieh,"Edomites Advance intoJudah,"BAR 22/6[ 1996]28-36).
( 40 ) T. Mettinger, No Graven Image ? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context ( Stock
holm:holm: Almgvist&Wiksell, 1995).
(41)V. Hurowitz,"Picturing Imageless Deities: Iconography in the Ancient Near East,"IMR
23(1997)46-5J> 68-69.
which Mettinger distinguishes in his e

'sr'sr see below) and'empty seat'(e.g.
legitimated the latter because it allowe
totally transcendent.
The lack of figurines in the official c
day to deduce :
The most economic hypothesis cove

assign the aniconic shrine-sanctuary
hierarchically organized state religion
vided monarchy)operative in close coo
apparatus.apparatus. The"distributed"cu
phenomena, both of which seem total
cial shrines and sanctuaries, are bes
probably dependent upon tradition
into the Bronze ages. . 42
Of the City of David figurines, 19%

73% are animal. Of the 211 animal he
the Assyrian" horses of the sun" (2 Kg
the other represented animals are le
or as food. The large number of femal
her breast(s), and they seem to be n
deadea nutrix pose of many L.B. figur
with the fertility goddess Asherah(see
they may only be votive offerings, ex
however, concur with Lewis that ev
"they nonetheless may have been th
their efficacy through a goddess."45
be speculated. The possibility might be
the Temple under Manasseh or are
Josiah. But this scenario is highly un lik
eighth century, since no such objects a
(42) Holladay,"Religion in Israel andjudah,

(43) Undermining M.Steiner,"Two Popular C
salem and E 207 in SamariahfS/OT 11(1997)
(44) Meyers, Discovering Eve, 161-63; M.S.Smit
per and Row, 1990)93-94; E.Bloch-Smith, Jud
(Sheffield:(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992)94-101.
(45) T. Lewis,"Divine Images and Aniconism in
10 JACOB MILGROM [10]
probably represent the popular r

the very shadow of the Temple, or
also hold here, they represent "disp
and possibly were a"protecting figu
which bestowed'plenty,'especially
What makes the City of David find
figurines figurines over eighth to sixth c
Josianic reform (621 bce), the pr
continue unabated all in the pr
duction is right inescapable :"The
support to a postulation of an icon
centuries bce."48
Conclusions
Thus, the cult practices attested by the Judahite figurines co

confirm the biblical evidence. A distinction has to be made between the of
ficial"establishment"cult centers in sanctuaries and the private, occasionally

clandestine, worship practiced by the people. The Josianic (and Hezekian)
reform occupied itself solely with the former public cult sites served by
Y H Y H WHistic or idolatrous priests49 but it did not penetrate into the private,
domestic worship of the masses. This does not imply that Josiah was in prin
ciple a monotheist; probably, he was a henotheist, believing in the existence
and potency of other gods. His reform (and Hezekiah's) only affirmed that
YHWH was Israel's national god, who alone should be worshipped in his
land land. Manasseh, to be sure, broke with this pattern, but he continued to main
tain yhwh (and his assumed escort, Asherah) as Israel's national god (see
the Addendum, below).
(46) Kletter, TheJudean Pillar, 63.

(47) Ibid., 81.
(48) I Sharon,"Appendix E. Analysis of Homogeneity for the Distribution of Figurines in
Strata 13-10," in D.T. Ariel and A. de Groot, eds., Excavations at the City of David (1978-85 ) ; Qedem
35 (35 ( 1996 ) 100-8, esp. 105.
(49) The detailed description of the reform undertaken byJosiah(2 Kings 23 )distinguishes
consistently between two kinds of officiants, kohanim and kemarim. It is logical to assume that the
former are priests of YHWH and the latter, priests of other gods (Akkadian kumru, Aramaic
kmra';kmra';kmra'; cf. M.Cogan and H.Tadmor, II Kings [AB 11 ; New York : Doubleday, 1988] 185-86 on 2 Kgs
23:5).The reference to"the idolatrous priests(kemrm)who had been installed by the kings of
JudahJudah (2 Kgs 23:5a) alludes to Kings Manasseh and his son Amon.whom the deuteronomistic
editors accuse of worshipping Molek, Asherah, and astral cults." E.Ben Zvi (A Historical-Critical
Study Study of the Book of Zephaniah['RZA'W 198; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991)69-71 ),however, claims that
kemrmkemrmkemrm are priests of YHWH who engage in illegitimate forms of worship, an explanation ac
cepted by A.Berlin (Zephaniah [AB 25a; New York: Doubleday, 1994] 74).
The biblical evidence reveals that in t

having been abolished), there was no op
ulation either by the prophets or the prie
YHWHism; the sanctuaries were now de
YHWH. Then, one need be ask; what co
only constituted an infinitesimal minority
parades their impotence. He cries out th
wattimle.wattimle. . . wattiml' (vv. 6-8), n
idolatrous practices," They bow down to th
fingers have wrought"(v. 8). This outburst
frustration. Instead of excoriating his peo
ders and throws up his hands. Since Isa
prophesy that on some future day (bayy
pletely ... on that day {bayym, hahi) m
and the bats, the idols of silver and the
worshipping"(vv.18,20).
In the seventh century, the picture begin
God strikes roots and spreads among the m
responsible: the book of Deuteronomy (
Y H WH has placed all idols in all their form
gods, public or private under total ba
wages an ongoing polemic against Asherah
the worship of YHWHf'And Deuterono
byjosiah, the king, and Hilkiah, the hig
versible turning point in the history o
prophets and the Deuteronomist's discip
ently they persuaded many to discard the
struck by the catastrophe of 586, they co
have eaten sour grapes and the children
[29]; Ezek 18:2; cf. Lamentations 5:7). A
deuteronomic campaign succeeds so well, t
but to make Manasseh the scapegoat fo
23:26-27; 24:3-4,20; cf. Jer 15:4). In th
anic reforms come and go, but domestic id
and vehement denunciation by Deuteron
this arouses the ire of Jeremiah and Ezeki
numbers of biblical condemnations of id
enth century.
(5< )S.M .Olyan, Asherah and the Gult ofYahweh i

(51) T. Binger, Asherah, Goddess in Ugarit, Israel a
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 125.
12 JACOB MILGROM [12]
Addendum: Asherah
I would like to add a speculative suggestion on the nature o

idolatry. After the finding of the Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet E
dons, the possibility has been raised that the people-at-larg
Asherah as Y H WH's consort:"52 This supposition would explain t
ation of Asherah in the vicinity of Israelite bamt( 2 Kgs 21:3). I
it would throw light on "the idolatry" of Manasseh, who installe
image (pesel, 2 Kgs 21:7 ; pesel hassemel, 2 Chronicles 33:7; hasseme
of Asherah within the Jerusalem Temple. One should pay clos
the Deuteronomist's wording of 2 Kings chapter 21. Where
smeared with the sweeping but vague accusation that he cons
for Baal in the land (2 Kgs 21:3; cf. 23:5) and for astral deities in
courtyards (2 Kgs 21:5),the text reaches its strident climax w
Manasseh for placing an image of Asherah in the sanctuary
221:7 ; cf. 2 3:6 )?3Did Manasseh set the Asherah image within the
alongside the Ark and its cherubic throne? If so, Manasseh w
abandoning his loyalty to Y H WH but worshipping him together
sort Asherah. That references to Asherah are not necessarily
emplified by King Asa, looked upon with favor by the deuterono
rian ( 1 Kings 15:11 ),yet he cuts down Asherah's mipleset 'abomi
but not Asherah herself(! Kgs 15:13)!
Moreover, one is surprised by only four references to Asherah
prophets ( Isa 17:8 ; 2 7:9 ;Jer 17:2 ; Mic 5:13 ), all voiced in the ma
and, hence, even if not additions to the texts, they denote cult o
than the goddess. Thus, the objections in the Bible to Asherah
betray a greater acceptance of Asherah worship than the D
would allow.54This deduction from the texts could also be abe
Since Y H WH may have been associate with Palestinian forms of
to reason that the El-Asherah (Ilu-Athirat) relationship obtain
was transferred by the people to YH WH-Asherah.
Why then did Manasseh and the general populace, who bou
(52) B. Margalit,"The Meaning and Significance of Asherah," VT40(1g9

Hadley,"Yahweh and'His Asherah': Archaeological and Textual Evidence for
GoddessrinW.Dietrich and M.A.Klopfenstein,eds.,.f.m GottAllein?(Gttinge
&8c Ruprecht, 1994)235-68; Binger, Asherah, passim.
(53) Cf. also Binger, Asherah, 125-26.
(54) With Hadley,"Yahweh and'His Asherah,"'240.
(55) P.D.Miller,"El, the Creator of the Earth "BASOR 239( 1980)43-46.
statues or figurines representing Asher

mistic YHWH priests? If the Decalogue
over the second commandment, not th
have declared that Asherah was not jus
adjunct of Y H WH, and an image of Ashe
Monotheistic priests, on the other hand, w
images, and for support they would cit
10 10 10 taasn 'itt 'elh zhb l' ta'as l
gods of silver, nor shall you make for y
20:20 [23] ),an exegetical application of
Ezra, Cassuto, etc.).That is, YHWH forb
himself, possibly a veiled reference to As
Moreover, it is even possible that the
taken offense if Asherah were aniconic
Asherah as consort that incensed them bu
form (just as later rabbinic literature e
presence of God by the feminine but in
Recently Lutzky has made a strong c
haqqin'haqqin' hammaqneh as "the image o
ousy " ( Ezek 8:3 )?7 It already had been su
referring to Manasseh's tome, and this
asseh?8asseh?8 On the basis of Ugarit's descr
of the gods'(C7A 4,1, 23; IV, 32) and th
ate' (Genesis 14:19, 22; Deut 32:6; Psalm
the theophoric name 'elqn ( 1 Sam 1:4
tional evidence for 'I qn'rs( at eighth cent
possible to hypothesize that what outra
even more than finding Asherah's image i
creative powers that were independent
(56) Details in E. E.Urbach, 77 Sages, I. Abraham

1979)2:37-65
(57) H.C.Lutzky,"On the'Images of Jealousy' (
(58) E.g.,Greenberg,Ezekiel 1-20,168.
(59) Cf. Miller,"El, the Creator of the Earth,"43

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Nature and Extent of Idolatry in Eighth-Seventh Century Judah

Author(s): Jacob Milgrom

The Biblical Text

This study is grounded in these statistics: The datable b

them from our count, the tota

( 2 ) Tentatively cf. the summary in S. L. McKenzie,"Deuteronomistic History,''ABD 2( 199

What could have caused the disapp

(10) But cf. H.L.Ginsberg,"Lexicographica

people that their paganism wil

In H, the tell-tale word tm' is used to indicate the contaminating effects

(17) Tentatively, seeJ.Milgrom,Lmhn/-/6(AB 3; New York, 1991)28-29, and I.Knohl, T

ship is condemned using either the ver

They may have been aided inde

(23) Cf. K.van der Toorn, Family Relig

notwithstanding)28notwithstanding)28 the ast

These deductive conclusions must receive substantive supp

(28) M. Smith,"A Note on Burning Babies "]AOS 95(1975)477-79

idolatry in eighth to seventh ce

(32) J.S.HolIaday,"Religion in Israel an

which Mettinger distinguishes in his e

The most economic hypothesis cove

Of the City of David figurines, 19%

(42) Holladay,"Religion in Israel andjudah,

(45) T. Lewis,"Divine Images and Aniconism in

probably represent the popular r

Thus, the cult practices attested by the Judahite figurines co

ficial"establishment"cult centers in sanctuaries and the private, occasionally

(46) Kletter, TheJudean Pillar, 63.

The biblical evidence reveals that in t

(5< )S.M .Olyan, Asherah and the Gult ofYahweh i

I would like to add a speculative suggestion on the nature o

(52) B. Margalit,"The Meaning and Significance of Asherah," VT40(1g9

statues or figurines representing Asher

(56) Details in E. E.Urbach, 77 Sages, I. Abraham

You might also like